Google Trends vs. Community Standards On Obscenity 332
circletimessquare writes "Google Trends is being used in a novel way in a pornography trial in Florida. Under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, 'contemporary community standards' may be used as a yardstick for judging material as unprotected obscenity. This is a very subjective judgment, and so Lawrence Walters, a defense lawyer for Clinton Raymond McCowen, is using Google Trends to show that, in the privacy of their own homes, more people in Pensacola (the only city in the court's jurisdiction that is large enough to be singled out in the service's data) are interested in 'orgy' than "apple pie'."
Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is awesome.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Is it neccessary for society to function? Is it important to have a line drawn somewhere, for fear that if the line gets pushed, even more extreme things may become the norm? (Killing babies, public self mutiliation, goatse)?
I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public. But then I try to think why it is, and can't seem to find a good answer. Is it because that's how I was brought up, and that's how I learned it should be?
There are a lot of things that I learned as I grew up that don't actually make sense. Is it possible that some things are just the way we've always done it, and that's why it shouldn't change? My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)?
As an interesting side note, if he really wants to make a point, he should add a new term to the trends- Google Trends [google.com]. (Additionally, he shouldn't have public news like this- people will skew the trends when they find out about it.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers can select any word combination that is helpful to them. Nothing here more than a new way to load an argument.
Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypocrisy isn't just the south - it's people. I have yet to meet a person that did not have some sort of hypocrisy going on in their own life - myself included. This is the reason for the entire Biblical passage, "Take the log out of your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors." If people spent time fixing themselves and not worrying about other people's problems, the world would be a much more beautiful place.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are extremely motivated by their own self-interest and will do whatever it takes to protect that self-interest, even if it means lying to themselves about their actual flaws. Only when people can admit their flaws are they ever going to have a chance of actually fixing things in their lives.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it is such a private and special act, despite the act having been demeaned over the past 60+ years. And that's the problem. Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.
Nudity is slightly different. Depending on the subject matter it is usually to be demeaning the topic (usually females) or to create a sensuality in the observer that may create conflict in that person's personal life. Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality.
While I realize this is not a popular opinion, I'm not going to hide behind AC on this one.
What the frilly heck is a "community standard?" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really tired of the "influential-prissy" inflicting their moral code on us by defining regular adult erotica outside the mainstream. I'm sorry, we the people LIKE erotica. It's in our nature and it's natural. If the prissy side doesn't want to partake, then they are free to refrain, but they shouldn't be able to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do based on their narrow prejudices. Furthermore, I'm tired of these vague and nebulous laws which specify "community standards," as if we all got a say in the matter (which, evidently, we don't).
This is suppose to be the land of the FREE, not necessarily just the PRUDES.
Grump!
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you censure fish who conduct the act of procreation on a mass scale in front of other fish?
Re:Hyprocrisy in the South--film at eleven! (Score:5, Insightful)
all is fair in love and war (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not like there once was a time in human history when love was free and sex was easy. there have always been social limits on sex for as long as we have been social apes. sure, we don't have to fight and scrounge for food anymore, but this has only been true for the last century. which, not coincidentally, the last century has seen a relaxation of sexual mores. the other hundreds of thousands of years of human history has been a desperate fight for resources for you and your children against the neighbors and their kids.
prudish social conservatism is not some newfangled judeochristian invention, it is simply human nature. the gut human reaction at seeing someone more successful than you procreatively or materially is anger, and this anger is evolutionarily advantageous: to work hard at limiting your fellow man's success and enjoyment in life, so that you may have some success yourself.
so sex is is fun, sex is pleasurable, sex is good, sex is harmless... unless it is someone else having it. then it is bad. is this selfish? absolutely. and evolutionarily advantageous. and therefore hardwired into how our brains function: there is no way the neighbor's children are going to get more bananas than my children, so there is no way the neighbors are going to freely have sex without my approval
in this perverse way, the urge to prevent other people from enjoying sex is the same urge underlying the desire for social justice, for equality: you can't have more than me, its not fair. community standards on sex is simply the most primitive form of birth control. no, that's not "just say no", that's "you have sex and i'll punish you, because your children are taking resources from my children"
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who? Last time I checked, there were thre reasons for doing something in private: You believe the world has no right to know your private affairs, or you're ashamed of what you're doing, or you fear the repercussions of your action.
Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. It can have those qualities, but those are not inherent in the act itself.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
"...intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other..."
That's your interpretation. It's not everyone's by any means.
Ask most men in their early 20s and you'll find that intercourse is an act performed wherever and whenever they can get away with it with whoever is looking good that day.
Ask a lot of young women of today and they'll tell you much the same (though probably a little less extreme).
Ask polyamourists, swingers, exhibitionists etc, you'll get a different answer every time.
What's "meant to be", that depends on who you ask. To me it sounds like a religious proclamation.
this is not to say I want to see fat people screwing in the streets, just that not everyone thinks the way you do.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why your opinion (or anyone's -- I'm not picking on you) should be explicitly disallowed when defining what behavior is acceptable. Prove its causing harm to others in a way that others can't choose to avoid it, or learn to deal with it. You may personally believe you don't want to see others walking around naked (and based on the current obesity epidemic in the US, you're probably right), but if it really bothers you then you can avoid going into those public places. You have no inherent right to be comfortable outside of your home.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppressed sexual energy can be canalized for profit.
Except that it isn't even that things have always been like that, just that they are perceived that way. Take the pledge of allegiance, "under god" was added LONG after it was first uttered, but conservatives want to keep it because this is the version they heard first, so they assume it's how it always was. They oppose change because it's different from what they were told was right, therefore it must be wrong.
Re:"What is more American than apple pie?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexuality is an excellent choice for a religion-dominated control-through-fear approach. It's one of the strongest natural drives, but contrary to hunger, thirst or the opposite bodily functions, you can actually suppress it for a long time. Thus you can have "good" examples to tell all the normal people that they are abnormal, evil, and will certainly go to hell unless... and the unless is what puts you in power.
Worked in Europe for almost two thousand years. In some more primitive parts of the world, including certain regions of Europe and the US, it still works quite well.
It is precisely because nudity and sex are such normal and natural things that they are made taboo.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. Sex is not particularly special, the majority of adults have had it. It's considered private in our culture, but in other cultures a couple living in a one room hut with a couple of kids will think nothing of getting it on while the kids are there.
(Sex with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing. But then, going out to dinner with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing - it's the "with someone you love" that makes it special, not the act itself.)
Sexual intercourse is "meant" to be an act performed to make more members of the screwing couple's species. Anything additional is a social or psychological construct. Which doesn't mean that adding to it is good or bad - but seeking "meaning" in biology is not a useful endeavor.
Ancient Hebrew mythology about talking snakes, magical trees, and why all the problems in the world are the fault of a woman, is not a good reason for pointing guns at people and locking them in cages if they step outside with no clothes on.
Any purported system of morality that claims public nudity to be immoral has left any vestige of rationality behind. Hundreds of people have seen me naked (at events like this [freespiritgathering.org] and this [rosencomet.com] and this [playadelfuego.org]) and no one has been harmed.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, let me say that I admire your stance on not posting as Anonymous Coward. I wish more people would associate themselves with their views when they know that they're saying something that will be unpopular.
Okay...I'm not sure where sexual acts have been demeaned for 60+ years. Depending on the threshold for "demean," it's either been 10+ years or 3500+ years (when you consider that the "+" is not like a price bid on "The Price is Right," so that you've got the best guess as long as you don't go over the real number). If you're referring to the prevalence of pornography on the Internet, and the explosion of variety that can be found there, then I'd go with the lower number. If you're talking about pornography in general, including group sex, homosexual acts or even acts with humans and animals together, then I'd go with the latter. There are depictions of sexual acts going back to ancient Chinese dynasties and even before that would certainly be considered more extreme than what is being put forth on trial here.
The real question in my mind is this: if civilizations have been depicting sexual activity for thousands of years, then what's the problem? Last I saw, every aspect of mankind has managed to advance during that time...what's the problem that some people are claiming exists?
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meant by society. There are societal norms present in every culture. Its not so much 'meant' as it is 'what is expected or regular.'
Culturally it's 'regular' or 'expected' that two people have sex alone or privately. I don't think society as a whole believes that 'sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once' is regular.
Granted, I don't think either choice should be regulated, but I think its naive of you to believe that there is no relative consensus about things like this in every society. That is to say, that society does not perceive 'sex as a private act between two people' and 'cheese orgy' as equally palatable (pun unintended) or socially acceptable.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is great - in theory (i'd spend +mod points if I had) and I wish reality matched up.
Unfortunately in the USA people seem to feel they deserve to be comfortable, protected, and coddled anywhere and everywhere they go. How about the FCC complaints about radio (much less TV) in the past few years? Seriously, turn it off or just change the station. Instead, certain people feel the need to impose their own moral views on the greater population.
As far as 'truths' - some people would emphatically argue that !church == hell *IS* 100% true. Those same people would probably also suggest that walking around nude would land you in hell as well. What it comes down to is your beliefs are your own. If they work for you, that's great. Just don't try to impose them on anyone else because, honestly, as strongly as you feel about them there's someone who feels just as strongly opposite them.
Wasn't the USA supposed to be the land of freedom? Tolerance? Well that's the theory I suppose but the vast majority of laws seem to either 1) protect you from yourself (seatbelt or helmet laws) or 2) force you to live your life according to someone else's moral standards - which can vary *greatly* between individual states anyway (e.g. age of consent varies from 14 to 18 if memory serves).
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you made a very interesting comparison.
Religion to terrorism. Not only do they go hand-in-hand often enough but they seem to operate on very similar principles.
Terrorism - we hurt you with whatever means we have because you disagree with our views or don't follow our way of life.
Religion - we threaten eternal damnation, expulsion from the community, and whatever else we can imply/coerce (and corporal/capital punishment particularly in older times) if you don't follow our views and ways of life.
So yeah...
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I don't believe that. Even in countries like Japan which do not have a Judeo Christian tradition there are taboos about sex and nudity. The fact is, if you're sentient and female sex is a big deal, because it can change your life if you get pregnant. So it's unlikely that women anywhere will be blase about sex because it is very important to them that they have sex with the right man. The right man being one that will support them when they are pregnant, because that is a vulnerable state. And with humans children are helpless for a very long time. Women need someone to protect their kids, and they need a mate to protect them, until those kids are independent. Which is something like 20 years.
I'd say if you're sentient and male and intelligent sex is a big issue too. Because you want to make sure your kids are able to support their kids. Which require you give them a good start in life. And that takes time and money.
The fact is that humans are K selection [wikipedia.org]species par excellence. And that makes sex a big deal.
Actually I think in the absence of some mechanism like genetic memories, you probably need to be a K selection species to spread across the Universe. So if any aliens arrive in starships, I'd expect them not to be blase about sex either. Essentially if they evolved through a Darwinian process like we did, as opposed to some Lamarckian one which allowed genetic memories, the guys that run things will have a small number of offspring and try to get them through the alien equivalent of an Ivy League university
Same old issue again (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that I see with this issue is that it isn't *really* about protecting the children so much as protecting one's self from having to encounter something that makes one squeamish.
Pictures of naked women painted to look like cows (for example) are pretty darn weird. A lot of people are well within their rights to be freaked out by the existence of such pictures. They are exactly the sort of thing that makes someone squeamish. But does that, in and of itself, mean they should be illegal?
In a country that is founded upon personal freedom, the answer is "no." In a country founded on moral oppression the answer is "yes," but America is not (at least in theory) such a country. Here the acid test is (or at least should be) "is it directly harmful to a human." And, in the case of these pictures, the answer is obviously, "no."
I have friends who are fond of saying, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to free speech" (interestingly enough, none of them have actually joined the military, but that is beside the point). They like to pretend to be patriotic. In my opinion, a REAL patriot would say, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to do things that freak me the fuck out."
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Prove that. It's not that I entirely disagree but there is a lot of grey area. Many people assume that sexuality needs to be separated from everything else despite it being one of the primal urges. I disagree.
Why can't David be titillating and art at the same time?
Re:"What is more American than apple pie?" (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a reason for this: the letters "orgy" don't have the same meaning in all languages.
Re:Same old issue again (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue the acid test should be more like, "is it directly harmful to a non-consenting human."
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's evidence suggesting that fish do have sex for reasons other than procreation. Whether this be pleasure (fish can feel pain [bbc.co.uk]--I submit that if a creature can feel pain they can feel pleasure), or for other social reasons [stanford.edu] (see the paragraph about bonobos using sex to relieve tension), or to establish dominance [reed.edu] (which I would argue the other animals aren't too happy about) the fact remains that human mores about sex appear to run counter to the rest of nature.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm,
That is interesting reasoning however, you have completely avoided the fact that we have managed to disconnect reproduction from sex?
So afaict by YOUR very reasoning, sex should no longer be a "Big Issue" because it can now be practiced without needing to be concerned for the
needs of offspring because they are only conceived when they are wanted and or ready for.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm,
That is interesting reasoning however, you have completely avoided the fact that we have managed to disconnect reproduction from sex?
So afaict by YOUR very reasoning, sex should no longer be a "Big Issue" because it can now be practiced without needing to be concerned for the needs of offspring because they are only conceived when they are wanted and or ready for.
I thought someone would say that. But disconnecting sex from reproduction is very, very recent. The pill, which allowed women to control their fertility was only available from 1960 onward. Now the seriousness that people, particularly women, attach to sex has been tuned by evolution for thousands of years. So it's not too surprising that they are still cautious. Once we've had thousands of years of sex being zero consequence I guess we'll be like Bonobos. In fact to the extent that the seriousness attached to sex is determined culturally, I guess we'd have already got there but for Aids.
But even in an environment where sex is safe - no possibility of Aids or unwanted pregnancies - it still seems like an evolutionarily correct approach would be to have sex with someone you would be happy having kids with. Which because human children mature so slowly means someone you'd want to spend the next 20 years being faithful to. Otherwise you might waste your fertile period having safe sex with people you don't want to have kids with and miss breeding.
Incidentally I think the fact that women have a hard limit on their reproductive life is another reason for them being pickier than men about who they have sex with. Mind you, if you want to see your kids graduate from that Ivy League university, men have a limited reproductive life too. The limit is a bit softer but it is still there if you accept the K selection argument
Obscene is defined by religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
I pointed out there was a real and rational reason why people tend to do things in private that has nothing to do with cultural/legal mores (shame & fear of repercussions) or personal attitudes (private nature). I didn't actually comment on the validity of the case or the likelihood of success.
I'm on the side of personal choice, albeit one tempered by the rights of others. E.g. "your right to throw a punch ends before my face starts." This admittedly tends to put more limits on extroverted activities in very public places but can be accomodated by signage to indicate expectations, e.g. differentiating between a "normal" public beach and a nude public beach.
In this case, that wouldn't apply unless these pornographers were projecting their wares onto the sides of buildings or on clouds.
By the same token, I'm all for "Joe Camel's Eatatorium & Tobacco Smokeatorium" where smoking is allowed in the entire restaurant because it's a private establishment. Public offices (meaning those actually operated by city/state/federal govt) would continue to have designated smoking-only sections since people *must* visit those offices rather than it being a choice of where to have dinner.
Re:all is fair in love and war (Score:3, Insightful)
And herein lies the rub. What "seems warranted" varies wildly depending on what measuring stick you use. For example, is it possible for a teenage vacuum-head "pop star" to warrant worth 10000 greater then the best neurosurgeon or the discoverer of some properties of proteins which result in making the cure for cancer possible?
What measurement do you use to make multi-billion economic empires - and with them the control of lives of hundreds of thousands of employees - be granted to a spoiled brat who never worked a day in her whole life?
I could go on.
As I got older, I realized, from first hand experience, that in our "society" there is in essence next to no wide-spread correlation between "success" and it being "warranted", no matter what measuring stick you use. Randomness, hereditary aristocracy and a very, very, very strong preference for Machiavellian sociopathic jerks adept at con-artistry seem be the main "features" of the landscape of distribution of "success" around us today.
Re:Petard, meet hoist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares about "societal norms" for private acts? By definition, "society" doesn't know about them.
This is simply some people imposing their will on others.